Nevada GOP's sundown caucus becomes raucous

Yesterday was the Nevada caucus, which was held on a Saturday morning. In an effort to accommodate Sabbath-observing Jews, Sheldon Adelson (Venetian owner) and the Nevada GOP had an additional evening caucus, coincidentally near my home. However, initially at least, to participate one had to sign an affidavit stating that his/her religious beliefs prevented him/her from attending the caucus that morning.

This really bothers me. I think the constitution puts it quite well:

Quote: First Amendment -- United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Granted, this happened at the state level, and arguably outside of government, I think that NO branch of government or anything to do with government should show any favoritism towards religion. For this reason I always applaud when courthouses in the South are forced to remove memorials to the Ten Commandments. What we have here is the Nevada GOP saying you must be a member of a Sabbath-observing religion to caucus at a particular time. I would think that a political party would be respectful of the rights afforded us in the Constitution. This is yet another reason I'm drifting away from the Republican Party.

I might add another unfair thing about this is only Clark County residents were allowed to participate. If a Jew from Reno flew down for this he would have been turned away.

So, the question for the forum is what do you think we should have done in Nevada.

Change to a primary and move it to a Tuesday.

Quote: Wizard

Yesterday was the Nevada caucus, which was held on a Saturday morning. In an effort to accommodate Sabbath-observing Jews, Sheldon Adelson (Venetian owner) and the Nevada GOP had an additional evening caucus, coincidentally near my home. However, initially at least, to participate one had to sign an affidavit stating that his/her religious beliefs prevented him/her from attending the caucus that morning.

This really bothers me. I think the constitution puts it quite well:



Granted, this happened at the state level, and arguably outside of government, I think that NO branch of government or anything to do with government should show any favoritism towards religion. For this reason I always applaud when courthouses in the South are forced to remove memorials to the Ten Commandments. What we have here is the Nevada GOP saying you must be a member of a Sabbath-observing religion to caucus at a particular time. I would think that a political party would be respectful of the rights afforded us in the Constitution. This is yet another reason I'm drifting away from the Republican Party.

I might add another unfair thing about this is only Clark County residents were allowed to participate. If a Jew from Reno flew down for this he would have been turned away.

So, the question for the forum is what do you think we should have done in Nevada.

I see your point, but basically a state party can already decide to apportion its delegates in an way it chooses to. Therefore I don't look at a caucus or a primary the same way I would a general election. You are playing the game that the party wants you to play, so they can make any rules they'd like. In 2008 (and perhaps again), Democrats had quotas that a percentage of each state's delegates had to be gay, or Muslim, or Asian, or other minorities. So basically, there was favoritism shown to certain groups (some religious) in their selection of delegates as well. Since those were the actual delegates to the convention and not merely a "middle man" type system like the NV Caucus, I think that was even more offensive than what happened last night. But it's their party, and they make the rules.

Quote: cclub79

I see your point, but basically a state party can already decide to apportion its delegates in an way it chooses to. Therefore I don't look at a caucus or a primary the same way I would a general election. You are playing the game that the party wants you to play, so they can make any rules they'd like. In 2008 (and perhaps again), Democrats had quotas that a percentage of each state's delegates had to be gay, or Muslim, or Asian, or other minorities. So basically, there was favoritism shown to certain groups (some religious) in their selection of delegates as well. Since those were the actual delegates to the convention and not merely a "middle man" type system like the NV Caucus, I think that was even more offensive than what happened last night. But it's their party, and they make the rules.

That's true that the party can give its delegates to whomever it chooses. It is also true I may take under advisement their discriminatory practices when I vote.

Regarding the racial quotas for delegates, that bothers me too, but not as much. I think you're referring to just the actual people who show up to the convention. They are told who to vote for. That policy was for appearances only. It looks good on TV to have a mixture of color.

First off, I think it's important to understand that a caucus is different than a primary.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either to understand the difference.

However, here's my opinions.

If residents for any county can go to the morning caucus in other counties, then the same should be true of the evening caucus.

If any county has a caucus at any specific time, then all counties should have one at the same time.

Both of the above opinions might be negated by my lack of understanding of what a caucus really is.

Most important, no caucus should be limited to any specific demographic group. To do so enables analysis of the data, putting the concept of a secret ballot at risk.

A caucus is like a primary, but you're required to show up at a particular time. It is dressed up to look like a meeting, where participants can make a statement, but who cares about that? I'm sure sure everyone goes in knowing who they are going to vote for.

Personally, I strongly prefer a normal primary, where you can show up at a convenient time, and be in and out in minutes. The Nevada caucus takes about 90 minutes.

The thing to remember is that this is a primary (caucus) and the party can run it any way they choose. Before the 1970s you might not have had a choice at all, the nominee being picked by party bosses. Remember in 2008 the Democrat Party made some kind of modification in NV so unionized shift-workers could vote in that caucus.

You did not quote the clause of the Ammendment correctly. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It is the part after the comma that judges trample all of the time, but that is for another thread.

A counter-argument could be made that by having the vote during the day there was an "Establishment Issue" as it was stating that Saturday voting was making some other day the Sabbath and Jews (and Seventh Day Adventists if there are any out there) were being discriminated against.

IMHO this was a fair balance to all. Caucuses take more effort and individual time than a primary. Weekends lets most people participate. Either Saturday or Sunday can conflict with Mass/Services/Temple/misc. By far, more people attend on Sunday so have the primary Saturday. So have the caucus saturday and accomidate the minority who have the religious issue. And they accomadates ONLY for the religious issue, not for someone who preferred to watch College Hoops.

The Jew from Reno would need to take it up with the Reno/Sparks GOP.

Thanks! Now I'm having flashbacks to the 2000 Democrat caucuses in Washington state. My brother was trying to be a delegate to the national convention. I went with him to two events and it was very boring. The first one I went to was ok. I think is was at the congressional district level. This was where they chose who would be a delegate at that level but he didn't make it there. The state convention sucked. Trying to be a delegate at the state level is pointless as most are already selected.

I got to head to work now but can follow up with my 2008 adventure.

Quote: AZDuffman

A counter-argument could be made that by having the vote during the day there was an "Establishment Issue" as it was stating that Saturday voting was making some other day the Sabbath and Jews (and Seventh Day Adventists if there are any out there) were being discriminated against.

I'm all in favor of enabling as many people to participate as possible. In this case, I have no problem with the Saturday evening caucus to enable the Sabbath observing to participate. However, as long as they are making that exception, it should be available to everybody. There are non-religious reasons as well why someone may have not been able to make the morning caucus. The door was specifically closed to them on religious grounds. That is what bothers me. You're not a Jew or Seventh-Day-Adventist (I've yet to meet one in Nevada)? Sorry, go home, you're not welcome to vote at this time.

Quote: Wizard

I'm all in favor of enabling as many people to participate as possible. In this case, I have no problem with the Saturday evening caucus to enable the Sabbath observing to participate. However, as long as they are making that exception, it should be available to everybody. There are non-religious reasons as well why someone may have not been able to make the morning caucus. The door was specifically closed to them on religious grounds. That is what bothers me. You're not a Jew or Seventh-Day-Adventist (I've yet to meet one in Nevada)? Sorry, go home, you're not welcome to vote at this time.

I lean toward agreement with you. I'm just going to play devil's advocate: If it was open to everyone, many more may have chosen to caucus then when they COULD HAVE gone earlier, whereas the Sabbath-observers couldn't have gone earlier. Perhaps they only wanted a smaller, extra caucus for that reason. If everyone had the choice to go later with no restrictions, they'd have to get lots of rooms and caucuses and moderators and spend more money. Looking back, they should have just made them ALL after sundown. If this becomes an issue, that's what they'll do next time, and more people will probably be unavailable.

But I do think the requirement shouldn't have mentioned Religion, but SHOULD have made the people swear that they were unable to attend any other caucus during the day.